New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times
Job Market
Real Estate
New York Region
NYT Front Page
Readers' Opinions

Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
New York Today
Week in Review
Learning Network
Book a Trip
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  /

    Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (5498 previous messages)

rshow55 - 08:20am Nov 6, 2002 EST (# 5499 of 5501) Delete Message
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

The Republicans beat the Democrats - often by narrow margins, but broadly enough across the country so that Bush's party controls the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate.

There were many reasons to vote against the Republicans, some reviewed on this board, some covered by the TIMES and other news organizations - and many people were aware of them.

Some of the reasons to vote against the Republicans were also, in a muddled and weak sort of way, reasons to vote for Democrats.

For enough of the people who cared enough to vote, and could, there were over-riding reasons to vote for the Republicans in enough races to make for a major shift in power.

The key reason, I'd guess, was that they were voting for social order, and coherence, against instability and chaos - in terms of the circumstances they themselves saw, lived in, felt, and could understand.

The desire for order above all else is powerful - and deserves respect. Practically, and morally, too.

People did not vote for lies, or bad technical judgements, or bad management, or under-the-table dealings, though they knew these things were sometimes associated with Republicans (as well as Democrats.)

I'm sure the Republicans know that, and will often remember it. I hope often enough, when it matters enough.

The administration decision to replace Pitt is a very good sign that they do.

When much is changing, and much is unclear and unsatisfactory, the need for stability is very real. What's more, for delicacy and coherent change in one particular area, you need stability, even rigidity, in some related areas.

The election could be a disaster for the United States and the world if Bush misuses the power he now has. But he could use it wisely. That could be very good - in ways that might be remembered for as long as anybody can forsee.

rshow55 - 08:24am Nov 6, 2002 EST (# 5500 of 5501) Delete Message
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

I think the stakes are high, and that the chances for good are very great. I also think that the Bush administration, and the TIMES, have shown some admirable performance.

An administration that tolerates some of the things I've done here, and on the Guardian, since October 2nd is making serious efforts at understanding, and taking risks for peace. I posted this on the Guardian thread Psychwarfare, Casablanca . . . and terror and discussions with gisterme have continued since:

rshowalter - 11:01pm Oct 12, 2002 BST (#339

"On October 3, there was a sequence of postings on the NYT Missile Defense forum - and all the NYT forums were closed down thereafter for four days. I was cut off sometime less than an hour after I posted this

" it is now technically easy to shoot down every winged aircraft the US has, or can expect to build - to detect every submarine - and to sink every surface ship within 500 miles of land - the technology for doing this is basic - and I see neither technical nor tactical countermeasures."

"All of the NYT forums were shut down for "urgent maintenance" shortly thereafter. Some of the material involved in that day's posting was set out, with supporting technical detail, in postings #330-338 of Psychwarfare, Casablanca . . . and terror , an International Talk thread (for links, click " rshowalter" ). Postings #330-338 of Psychwarfare have been referred to repeatedly on the NYT MD forum since it reappeared on the 7th. When the NYT forums reappeared, I was pleased that only a few postings after 9:14 am NY time were deleted, and that the last postings permitted to remain when the forums reappeared on the 7th were my 4739 and 4740 rshow55 10/3/02 8:14am

"4740 contained a reference I was glad was included - one that I feel sure was not missed by NYT staff: 4572 rshow55 9/26/02 4:15pm "

- - - - - - - -

My guess is that every nation state in the UN Security Council has a representative who has read or heard about the bolded statement above, and that the matter has been brought to the attention of President Bush. I also guess that many on the Security Council, and some people at the TIMES, suspect that gisterme may sometimes be G.W. Bush. People at the TIMES, and in the Security Council, if they notice this thread at all, will know if I am right about my guess about their judgements.

If I'm right about that guess, this is a very hopeful time, though a dangerous one. Because if I'm right, the President of the United States - with a midterm election over, and a majority in both houses, is working hard to resolve world problems peacefully - is acting with powerful and responsible people from all over the world watching - and has clear personal lines of communication, all over the world, about what is being done, and why. The President may be misguided - and in my judgement sometimes is. But if I'm right about who gisterme is - the President is trying to make good decisions - and working hard.

As of now, it looks like the situation in Iraq may resolve in a beautiful, and historically important way. Though of course it could still go very wrong.

As of now, conditions are in place for a much better resolution of the situation in the Koreas - though chances may be tossed away.

Right now, the basic relations of international law are being discussed very carefully, and renegotiated both in writing and de facto.

If other nation-states use the power, intellect and information resources they have - - things could go very well.

I'm fearful, but hopeful, too.

More Messages Recent Messages (1 following message)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense

Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us